1. Impact evaluations: lessons from AFD’s experience Phnom Penh SKY evaluation meeting 4-5 October 2011

2. 4 October 2011 Impact evaluations: lessons from AFD’s experience 2 What are impact evaluations promises? Context: Increased concern for aid effectiveness (2005 Paris Declaration) Relative failure of academic literature on growth (and its relationship with aid) to inform aid delivery (2006 report by the Center for Global Development: “When will we ever learn”) In response, impact evaluations were promoted to: Provide robust evidence on the effect of development interventions on their beneficiaries… … and hence finally learn on “what works and what doesn’t”  Thus, impact evaluations aim at contributing to accountability and knowledge, towards effectiveness of (future) development interventions 1.1

3. 4 October 2011 Impact evaluations: lessons from AFD’s experience 3 The rise of the “evidence movement” Creation of the International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3IE), Development Impact Evaluation Initiative (DIME, World Bank), etc. Movement reinforced by the widely acclaimed example of the Progresa program in Mexico Strong increase of the number of IE related to development interventions over the past 10 years More than 800 completed or on-going studies (White, 2011) Several methods exist, but RCTs have rapidly been considered as the most robust one 1.2

4. 4 October 2011 Impact evaluations: lessons from AFD’s experience 4 Impact evaluations at AFD Impact evaluations at AFD: a stepwise experience Build in-house and AFD’s partners capacities on IE tools Contribute to overall debate on development aid effectiveness and IE Define a strategy towards the use of IE in AFD’s operations Since 2003, AFD has completed or initiated 9 IE studies in various sectors and countries, using different methodologies Two large scale experimental studies: “Al Amana”: rural microcredit in Morocco “SKY”: micro health insurance in Cambodia 1.3

5. 4 October 2011 Impact evaluations: lessons from AFD’s experience 5 Importance of the SKY evaluation from AFD perspective Change in French government strategy since 2004 (CICID) in the context of MDGs Health and education sectors: top of the agenda Several on-going projects of health-insurance: Cambodia, Laos, Mali, Senegal, Cameroun, Madagascar, Mauritania Little robust knowledge about effects of health insurance in developing countries On-going debate about best interventions to (i) remove financial barriers to health protection whilst (ii) insuring sustainability User fees, conditional-cash transfers, insurance, free services 1.4

6. 4 October 2011 Impact evaluations: lessons from AFD’s experience 6 Lessons learned: objective of accountability can be reached only under certain conditions Relative simple interventions (best if single-strand initiatives) Difficulties if too many inputs (may be conflicting effects) Interventions that have been already piloted in other areas / contexts → mature and stabilized interventions If new services provided, take-up might be low (“compliance” problem) due to slow learning process Evaluation conditions not too different from normal implementation conditions Measured outcomes not too far in the causal chain If far, statistically hard to detect an impact through the evaluation Outcomes expected in the short-run If not, problematic to maintain treatment / control groups (“spillovers” effects) 1.5

7. 4 October 2011 Impact evaluations: lessons from AFD’s experience 7 What results For which utilization 1.6 ProgresaAl AmanaSky Evaluated beneficiaries Program’s beneficiaries Purposive samplingCompliers to incentive Evaluated impactProgram’s impactIntermediary outcomes Lessons from Impact Evaluation Impact of Progresa + Academic publications Microfinance and investment behavior Microinsurance, health behavior and adverse selection

8. 4 October 2011 Impact evaluations: lessons from AFD’s experience 8 Lessons learned: objective of knowledge- production achieved Various interesting quantitative results Examples Opposable results (robust) Coupled with qualitative approaches, IE programmes can provide great understanding of the mechanisms at stake SKY example: economic impacts, health-care behavior, adverse selection effects, supply quality, etc. Sub-product of these studies: make explicit the theory behind the intervention (“theory of change”), otherwise often hidden Perspectives at AFD: Carefully screen projects to be evaluated with IE tools Innovative projects (test alternative options within interventions) Promote a mixed-methods approach (qualitative / quantitative) 1.7

9. Thanks for your attention http://www.afd.fr/home/recherche/evaluation- capitalisation/Evaluation-impacts